Is Mirror Therapy an Effective Adjunct to Traditional Inpatient Care for Treating Upper Limb Hemiparesis and Spasticity In Individuals Post Stroke? A Meta-Analysis

Why the fuck is a meta-analysis needed? No one keeps up with research in your field? No publicly available database of research and protocols? Laziness? Stupidity? Waiting for SOMEONE ELSE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM? I have 37 posts on mirror therapy going back to 2012. Proof we have NO strategy and NO leadership. Wasting money and time again.

http://search.proquest.com/openview/c5c6550129d2b174ca7751ef690fe7f5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Objective:

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the effectiveness of mirror therapy as an adjunct to a traditional inpatient care for treating upper limb hemiparesis and spasticity in individuals post stroke.

Methods:

Studies examined the application of mirror therapy as an adjunct to traditional inpatient care provided for individuals post-stroke. These studies were performed in similar treatment settings and reported on Fugl-Meyer Upper

Extremity Assessment (FMA-UE) and/or the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS).

Results:

In the analyses of the FMA-UE and the MAS, a moderate effect was observed, in favor of mirror therapy. No statistical significance was found with either outcome measure.

Conclusion:

Mirror therapy may be beneficial as an adjunct to traditional inpatient care for improving motor recovery of the upper limb post-stroke.

Effective management of spasticity after stroke requires a targeted, multimodal

approach.(But you don't tell us what that protocol is to do that)

Study Design:

A meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs),

including pilot RCTs, examining the effects of mirror therapy applied as an

adjunct to traditional inpatient care for upper limb recovery post-stroke.

Marissa Nicole Carranza

May 2017